Jesus the son of Caesar and Cleopatra?

[flobadob]

I've only come across this theory and was wondering could there be any truth to it. I've always sort of believed that Mary, the mother of Jesus was the daughter of a very wealthy family and the virgin birth story was concocted so as not to bring shame upon the family. However, this theory could also be valid as I also believe history has been created by the powerful rulers of the past, created as they wished it to be told. Has anyone else ever come across this theory and do you think there could be any truth in it?

[naomi24]

Ankou, I was initially responding to Heathfield's post about Robert Graves, and as far as I can see Keyplus hasn't entered the debate. As for roundabouts, do bear in mind that this is a discussion forum and you are under no obligation to climb aboard if the subject matter doesn't suit you.

Heathfield, Jesus had rich and influential friends, and since we're told they went to Pilate to ask for his body, and were given permission to take it away, I have no doubt that brown envelopes - or the equivalent - changed hands.

Chakka, No one can say, as you have, that it's all fantasy. That can only possibly be an assumption. The simple truth is none of us know whether Jesus existed or not, so it isn't reasonable to say I am unwise to consider the New Testament as any record of the times, since this is the only record (if it is a record) we have of the life of Jesus. Of course the information we're given concerning the census are nonsense, along with a lot more - we know that - but as you know, I think there is some truth in most ancient writings, I believe Jesus existed, I don't for one moment believe he was supernatural in any way whatsoever, and bearing in mind the influence his story has had on the world, I think it warrants serious investigation to the best of our ability.

[Ankou]

if he was a threat to herod antipas and the throne as you claim, no amount of cash in brown envelopes would have saved him.

[naomi24]

I'm not claiming anything - this is an hypothesis - and much of it isn't mine, as Robert Graves' book (and others) bear out.

If there was a plot to rescue Jesus, and money did change hands, it would have gone, not to the Jews, but to the Roman soldiers who carried out the crucifixion. If he was perceived by the Roman authorities to be the rumoured rightful heir to the throne, and consequently possibly a ringleader, and an inspiration to the Zealots, a group bent on overthrowing the Romans and expelling them from the land, then, politically, he was a far greater danger to them than he was to Herod Antipas. As I said, the Jews didn't crucify Jesus - the Romans did - and therefore they must have found him guilty as charged.

Of course, on the other hand, Jesus may have been the supernatural Son of God and a virgin called Mary, or he may not have existed at all, but I prefer to think differently.

[Ankou]

well caiaphas and the jewish council found him guilty before they took him to pilate. they couldn't agree on the mosaic law of blasphemy that would allow them to put him to death (hence jesus not saying he was god 'it is you who say i am etc etc...) so they took him off to pilate saying he was seditious so the romans could put a stake through him.

"politically, he was a far greater danger to them than he was to Herod Antipas" but i thought you said his throne was at threat ? make your mind up.

[naomi24]

No need for rudeness, Ankou. This is only a discussion. I did say the throne was under threat, but if you'd read my posts properly you would have seen that I also said:

//If Jesus was indeed the rightful heir to the throne, then that information had the potential of causing even more unrest in an already volatile area, and consequently major political difficulties for the Romans...//

Anyway I understood you felt this wasn't worthy of discussion, and that you'd said your last word on it a few posts ago, but it seems you've changed your mind so welcome aboard the roundabout.

[Ankou]

yes, which is why i said he would never have been allowed to live.

[naomi24]

But the authorities were told he was dead, and since Pilate gave permission for his body to be removed, they obviously believed it. However, that's your opinion, so fair enough.

[chakka35]

Yes, of course, naomi, it warrants serious investigation, and that's what we give it. And that serious investigation reveals nothing at all except uncorroborated statements by the known Paul and uncorroborated stories by the unknown gospel writers. When you find there is nothing else, the serious investigation is over.

Ah, except that further investigation reveals that the pagan god-man story, which existed centuries before Jesus' supposed time, also tells us of a man who was the son of God, who came to earth as a redeemer, who surrounded himself with twelve disciples, who turned water into wine at a wedding reception among many other Jesus-type miracles, who rode into the city on a donkey to the waving of palm fronds, who was executed at Easter time and then rose from the dead, the memory of which is preserved in a ritual known as The Lord's Supper where the wine represents his blood and the bread his flesh.... then you realise that it is just an ancient story like that of Zeus, Apollo, Venus and the rest. Which is why the history in the New Testament, as distinct from the story-telling, is so inaccurate.

What other qualification is needed to call it a fantasy?

[naomi24]

Chakka, Without the provision of corroborated evidence the investigation may be over for you, but it most certainly isn’t for me. Clearly it’s totally unrealistic to demand instant corroborated evidence of ancient legends, but I cite the city of Troy, now a Unesco World Heritage Site, as an example of a myth that became a reality. If we really want to expose the truth of the past, then the only way to do that is to continue to seek evidence, but your attitude in reiterating and, quite rightly, denigrating the religious superstitions emanating from the Jesus story is not one of a serious investigator, but of a defeatist. I hate to say it, dear Chakka, but the laziness of the proponents of Occam’s Razor springs to mind - ;o) - and whilst that might be good enough for you, it doesn’t even touch the sides with me.

[chakka35]

What investigation, naomi?

We don't disagree on principle but there simply is nothing to investigate. The only stories we have of Jesus are the bald statements of Paul, and the four gospels. There is nothing else. As one who has been fascinated by the origins of Christianity for decades I would be among the first in there if there were.

It's possible, of course, that some new stuff might be unearthed one day, at which point we can all dive in again with great enthusiasm. Until then it is all just rehash.

As for my defeatism, that's a new charge and an interesting one. It means I'm also a defeatist when it comes to astrology, flat-earthism, magic crystals, alien abductions, the Bermuda Triangle, ouija boards, Borley Rectory, weeping statues, spoon-bending, creationism, roulette systems and other claimed effects where there is simply nothing to investigate. Never thought I'd feel proud to be a defeatist! Time for a gin. Cheers!

[naomi24]

Chakka, I didn't say you are a defeatist, I said your attitude is one of a defeatist. If we all thought like that, then any potential new evidence would never be unearthed because we'd all have given up the search. Hope you enjoyed your gin.